I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet! I can think of one really big example in the U.S....

Corn Based Ethanol
- Cars aren't designed for it so it causes lower gas mileage and more pollution.
- It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn than it creates.
- Diversion of mass quantities of corn to Ethanol is causing food prices to dramatically rise around the world.
- The boom in corn ethanol in the U.S. is subsidized by tax dollars that could invested in better options.
- I also heard someone on NPR say that if we took all of the farmland in the U.S. to grow corn for ethanol it still wouldn't produce enough gas to meet the current U.S. demand.

The only good part of corn ethanol is that it reduces reliance on foreign oil and keeps more of the money in the country. Besides that it's a losing proposition...

You'll notice I was sure to say "corn ethanol" because I'm not saying all ethanol is bad. Ethanol or Alcohol produced from sugar cane has been a great success in Brazil. I read somewhere, it might have been Rolling Stone that for every unit of energy that goes into producing sugar cane ethanol 13 more units of energy are produced. I think this is because it distills much easier than corn and can be grown more efficiently but I'm not sure of all the details.

One of the examples of greenwashing that people on several sites have mentioned is the sale of "organic," "pure," or "natural" bottled water. I thought you all might appreciate today's Doonesbury strip on the subject at Doonesbury@Slate. Today's date is 5/18/08 in case you want to check their archives for it on a later date.

Have you ever seen that GE commercial where they are hoisting all the plastic bottles of water on to a fishing boat using a fishing net? It was one of their Eco-magination commercials. That commercial bugs me. There's nothing green about filtering water and putting it in plastic bottles!

According to a green survey from Rackspace Hosting (PDF), 44 percent of respondents are willing to pay more for green products and services this year; down significantly from the 59 percent of respondents that were willing to pay more last year.
…
“It’s interesting to see that customers still think green is very important, but today they may be less willing to pay more or trade performance for lower carbon emissions.

So, assuming that the results of the survey are valid, the question remains as to the significance of the trend: consumer willingness-to-pay higher prices for “green products and services” dropping from 59% (last year) to 44% (this year).

Does this represent a lessening of consumer concern for the major issues of environmental uncertainty (weather / climate), food prices, energy crisis, etc.? Or could the cause be related to an increased cynicism or skepticism related to other developments like all the mega-corporations that are suddenly “going green” for profit?

That variety of corporate eco/green self-labellers are, of course, in direct contrast to organizations that sell green products and services to support environmental initiatives/activities. If the on-going proliferation companies that have made the transition from {major polluters} to {green washers} to {green profiteers} are a main contributing factor to a loss of consumer confidence that would be unfortunate, since many smaller companies with genuine motives have been actively involved in promoting and expanding the market space for green/ethical/organic products and services for many years...

Scary thing is there are people out there that actually believe this stuff when they see it in a Shell commercial!

Or the water fuel ads. Those might not be greenwashing in the strictest sense, but work along similar lines. While admittedly, it may be difficult to distinguish the feasible and factual from the “scams, shams and spam”, its surprising how many people appear to (at least partially) believe the ads which suggest that cars can run using water as the only fuel (as opposed to being an energy carrier via hydrogen).